Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.

That's b/c you have a presuppositional bias that you are trying to defend, and that's called Confirmation Bias. You are STARTING with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. It's irrational to do so. Science operates quite differently. You should know better than this. Science operates upon what can be demonstrated and reasonably inferred from the mountains of evidence that exist. You don't have any evidence of "creation". It's a mere assertion based upon your ASSUMPTION of the bible. You are trying to smuggle your religion into science and act like it's cool (all the while trying to attack evolutionary biology). It's not cool and it won't be tolerated. For those of us that actually care about truth your religious assumptions (which are not science) are insufficient to explain anything. They get us absolutely nowhere. All they do is spread deliberate ignorance and ant-science propaganda based in your fear of what might be true.

No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Let me get this straight. Your god decided that the only way humans could digest food would be to make human intestines home to 1000 different kinds of bacteria, so numerous that there are ten times as many bacterial cells in humans as there are human cells in humans, and he took great care to change the species of bacteria so that people living in Asia have an almost completely different bacteria biome in their intestine as do North Americans. African intestinal bacteria are different yet. And just to make sure other bacteria had a job to do, he also put many trillions on our skin, and made sure that if the bacteria all died off, we couldn't survive. And he did this because he loves us. Right?

Your god can't make a person who can digest food without using bacteria? What sort of whimpy god is that? He can't make it possible for us to survive in our environment without bacteria on our skin? What was he thinking?

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.

Old books are not evidence of demons and your saying so doesn't make it so. Again, you are demonstrating an ANTI-SCIENCE mindset. You don't care about actually having to apply critical thinking, evidence, and reason to your claims. You just WANT to keep your assumptions. But this approach fails miserably b/c it is unreliable for separating fact from fiction. Before you can merely ASSERT that a 'demon did this or that' you need to actually demonstrate there is such a thing. This pertains to the subject b/c it shows that, hidden beneath the surface, you don't care about science or what is reasonable, rational, and demonstrable. You have a double standard for fact finding - and it shows.

It's not 100% accurate. Sometimes they can't decide what happened at all. Sometimes they are wrong and an innocent man goes on death row and gets killed before they say "Opps!"

Of course it isn't 100% accurate. But you don't need perfect accuracy for something to be reliable and useful. A certain percentage of manufactured items (say computers) have failures that aren't caught before they're sold. Does that make computers unreliable or useless?

Certainly, there are times when forensic specialists get things wrong, and there are times when forensic science doesn't give a clear answer. But part of life is dealing with the times we're uncertain or wrong.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

I hear you also don't accept macro-walking. You believe it is possible to walk from your house to your car, but you know it is impossible to walk all the way to the store. Micro-walking is true. Macro-walking is not. It can't be. Why would anyone ever think it is possible to walk a long way?

No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Pure speculation and I call bullshit. You do not know WHAT you would be like (or what you would accept) if you experienced a worldview change. I was a Christian (arguing just like you online) for over 10 years. You cannot assume you know how you would be if things were different. If things changed, then all bets are off. Stop assuming you know things which you clearly don't know.

I doubt Skeptic was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

It's nonsensical to say, "If I became atheist again". What if I became an astrologer and then "became" a non-astrologer? Do I need that title for a lack of belief? Were talking about a lack of belief here, not a positive position. I'm going to write a book, "When I became a non-unicorn-believer". Well gosh, what do non-unicorn-believers do with themselves!!!

You haven’t elaborated on why you were an atheist, but from what you've typed you had poor reasons for being an atheist then, and you have poor reasons for being a Christian now.

Well, either great minds think alike (though not necessarily simultaneously), or I'm a plagiarist. Or our observations were inevitable. I'd let Skeptic666 decide, but he's still trying to learn his shapes and colors and things.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist. No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist. People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document. No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap. It's for real.

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

Skeptic54768 not only ignores the OP, but leads everyone on a merry troll chase.

Quote

...in order to meet this challenge. You must rightly, accurately, and correctly represent the Theory of Evolution as it is described by those in the professional field who maintain it.

Skeptic54768, you have yet to meet the conditions of the OP in that you have failed time and again to describe the theory of evolution as understood by scientists using your own words.

This is a pretty simple litmus test on whether a person actually understands an argument: can you state it in a way that accurately reflects your counterpoint view? Given that you have not, it seems fairly safe to assume that you cannot.

I'm curious skeptic54768, do you intend to meet the simple conditions of this question, or merely run in more circles avoiding it?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Well, either great minds think alike (though not necessarily simultaneously), or I'm a plagiarist. Or our observations were inevitable. I'd let Skeptic666 decide, but he's still trying to learn his shapes and colors and things.

"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the observation of inevitability."

I also have never seen Dawkins explain how bones started evolving, how hearts started evolving, and how blood evolved.

If you don't know something just admit that you don't know it.

Don't let your demon confuse you with fantasy.

There are many things which you do not know but other people do.

(Shep has probably not noticed why you are calling him skeptic666. He doesn't realise it is in the number he typed. 54768. These numbers add up to exactly the same as 66666. Take one from 7 add it to the 5. That is the first group of two 6. Take two from 8 add it to 4. That is the second group of two 6. Then the last 6 is the third group of 6. That is three groups of six.)

The Cambrian Explosion happened relatively fast, when compared to the fossil record for other periods. But not really really really fast, like the frickin' roadrunner.

Would you say it was fast compared to plate tectonics?

The Cambrian explosion still took millions of years. It was recently calculated that the rate of evolution was three to five times what it is today. That is not surprising. The animals had to adapt quickly to hunting and being hunted, and there were plenty of unoccupied habitats to colonise.

FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Science is based on experiment and evidence, Shep. Your demon is leading you astray. This is another example of false information.

Look at your name again skeptic54768. See how you have typed three symmetrical circles around the 6. These are 6, 5 and 7, 4 and 8. You were saying that people subconsciously know what they believe. Explain this 666 in your subconscious Shep. Why did you type three times around the 6? Explain all the things you said you saw. Is this normal Shep?

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

Skeptic, I think this question might help you in your understanding. It sounds ridiculous on first reading, but I assure you that it is a serious question. To answer it in anything other than a flippant way will give you a great understanding of what evolutionary theory actually says. Are you ready? Okay - here's the question.

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think I believe in my religion? I get my prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to me.

Fixed that for ya.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Has skep actually gotten around to addressing the OP? Has he described the ToE or is he just continuing his nonsense from other topics? I can't see where he actually got around to this, but my eyes do have a tendency to glaze over when I see his name so I might have missed it.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

The discussion we've been having with the DTs has me studying abiogenesis in wiki. It seems most plausible that ocean water would be involved, using the idea that we know drives so much at the cellular level - diffusion causing concentration gradients that lead to electrical charge gradients.

I didn't realize there were so many seemingly plausible theories.

It is also interesting with 1 theory that by using math, and extrapolating back in complexity , there is not enough time on earth, so starts the theory of necessary extraterrestrial life. Wiki also says that organic compounds are relatively common in space.

From wiki:

Quote

A 2001 experiment led by Jason Dworkin[156] subjected a frozen mixture of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide to UV radiation, mimicking conditions found in an extraterrestrial environment. This combination yielded large amounts of organic material that self-organised to form bubbles or micelles when immersed in water. Dworkin considered these bubbles to resemble cell membranes that enclose and concentrate the chemistry of life, separating their interior from the outside world.

Also mentioned is the Krebs cycle and photosynthesis, as possible very early parts of evolution.